The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

Basically your argument appears to be this.

If you have one person saying the sun is the sun, and another person saying the sun is his head, then I should be willing to accommodate that sun is both the sun and his head.

Er... what? clearly the person who thinks the sun is his head is wrong.

I also know that people who say the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms are wrong. It's that simple. I'm not going to accommodate someone's made up belief simply so they can push their own agenda, when they're clearly wrong. Sorry.

The "truth" on the other side is made up because it's convenient. It has NO BASIS IN REALITY.

Every time I present FACTS, they get IGNORED and instead they post stuff that has no relevance at all.

Take the person who posted lots of Founding Father quotes about the right to keep arms to prove that I was wrong about the right to bear arms. Er.... what? It's like saying this pear is nice, therefore that apple has to be nice too. Logical?

Hi frigidweirdo
in this case I'd say about 60-70% of the historian and legal arguments
are in favor of the "individual right to bear arms" interpretation
being the equivalent of saying the sun is the sun
and believe that the "militia" interpretation
is the equivalent of saying sun means your head.

And only 30-40% of the historical and legal arguments
are used to defend what you are saying that
the "militia" argument is the right one and the other is fabricated
for convenience, belief, preference, or some other political or personal agenda
and not based on historical records/facts.

Can I ask you why you reject the following two arguments
1. the whole context and reason for the Constitution and Bill of Rights
was to ensure there wasn't govt oppression of people, given that
the War for Independence included the very dangerous tactic of
the govt in power confiscating the arms from citizens. The big fight
that still remains over the Constitution is centralized govt vs.
rights of people and states not to be overruled and abused by
a greater collective authority and force which is the nature of govt
to become corrupted.
So this whole historical background, culture and reasoning behind
having Constitutional limits and checks on govt SPEAKS to NOT
giving up power of the people to organized govt. So the idea is not
to let the federal govt control the arms, and this includes organized
militia not getting so close to the govt it becomes part of that. So the
check on that is the people who retain right to bear arms to prevent that.

2. Are you including James Madison's arguments about the importance
of the right to bear arms and individual rights?
Are you saying this was cut out of the 2nd Amendment where it only
applies to organized militia and completely leaves out the arguments
for individual rights?

That's where you lose me. Given the fact that
1. America just fought a war and only succeeded because the people both individually and fighting as organized soldiers were able to access and use weapons against greater armed forces.
2. Advocates who didn't trust govt, and always wanted the people to have check against govt abuses would NEVER agree to concessions that took power from the people and gave it to govt without consent and democratic process.

I am very open minded to including what you believe to be the truth
equally with the majority who wouldn't, and who would say YOU are the
one saying the sun is your head; but as open minded as I am, you cannot
convince me that these Founders and Revolutionaries would ever agree
to give up their right to bear arms to organized govt to regulate through militia
as a requirement.

And if you cannot convince me, I imagine the rest will never change their
beliefs that are even more exclusive and closed, with no room at all for
your arguments although my approach can include yours without issue.

So you are dealing with the majority arguments saying
you are the anomaly or discrepancy arguing your head is the sun
while they are equally confident as you are that they are saying the sun is the sun.

Given the tenacity and battles fought over federalism and how to
prevent the same oppression from overregulating the people,
you will have a hard time convincing me much more convincing others
that these people would ever agree to your interpretation.

As hard as people reject that now, the wounds of war
and fear of being disarmed by an overbearing govt
were even more magnified back then. If you can't
convince people now, how could you me or anyone have convinced
the people then to give up their right to bear arms to
govt and militia regulations. Sorry but those beliefs are too strongly
embedded, and if people won't give them up now,
they certainly wouldn't do it back then when the risk of
being overpowered was still fresh in fueling great rifts over
this same historical issue.

I'm not really sure why you've brought up the individual v. collective argument. Is anyone arguing the collective argument? I'm certainly not.

So you've written a whole long post on something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I've been speaking about. So I'm afraid I can't really respond other than tell you what I've already said.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
.....
Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.

No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.

Dear frigidweirdo
A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
and is not the original intent?

B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
because it hasn't been struck down

what about new laws like conceal and carry.

new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.

Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.

So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
.....
Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.

No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.

Dear frigidweirdo
A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
and is not the original intent?

B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
because it hasn't been struck down

what about new laws like conceal and carry.

new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.

Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.

So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
'

Wrong.

Laws and measures are presumed to be Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, and are considered to be the law of the land. (see US v. Morrison (2000))

Any local official who refuses to enforce a just and proper law is in violation of the Constitution and his oath of office. (see Cooper v. Aaron (1958))

Local authorities don’t have the authority to ‘deem’ any measure Constitutional or un-Constitutional – their opinion as to the constitutionality of a law they’re entrusted to enforce is irrelevant.

 

[turtledude]

Wrong.

Laws and measures are presumed to be Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, and are considered to be the law of the land. (see US v. Morrison (2000))

Any local official who refuses to enforce a just and proper law is in violation of the Constitution and his oath of office. (see Cooper v. Aaron (1958))

Local authorities don’t have the authority to ‘deem’ any measure Constitutional or un-Constitutional – their opinion as to the constitutionality of a law they’re entrusted to enforce is irrelevant.

that's the catch. some laws are patently unjust and improper

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
.....
Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.

No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.

Dear frigidweirdo
A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
and is not the original intent?

B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
because it hasn't been struck down

what about new laws like conceal and carry.

new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.

Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.

So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
'

I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.

The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.

No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.

Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.

Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.

 

[turtledude]

Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
.....
Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.

No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.

Dear frigidweirdo
A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
and is not the original intent?

B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
because it hasn't been struck down

what about new laws like conceal and carry.

new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.

Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.

So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
'

I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.

The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.

No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.

Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.

Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.

what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
.....
Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.

No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.

Dear frigidweirdo
A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
and is not the original intent?

B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
because it hasn't been struck down

what about new laws like conceal and carry.

new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.

Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.

So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
'

I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.

The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.

No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.

Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.

Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.

what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?

Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?

Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.

If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.

 

[westwall]

Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
.....
Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.

No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.

Dear frigidweirdo
A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
and is not the original intent?

B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
because it hasn't been struck down

what about new laws like conceal and carry.

new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.

Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.

So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
'

I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.

The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.

No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.

Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.

Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.

what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?

Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?

Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.

If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.

I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision. I wonder why you ignore that?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
.....
Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.

No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.

Dear frigidweirdo
A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
and is not the original intent?

B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
because it hasn't been struck down

what about new laws like conceal and carry.

new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.

Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.

So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
'

I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.

The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.

No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.

Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.

Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.

what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?

Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?

Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.

If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.

I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision. I wonder why you ignore that?

Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.

 

[Papageorgio]

Dear frigidweirdo
A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
and is not the original intent?

B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
because it hasn't been struck down

what about new laws like conceal and carry.

new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.

Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.

So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
'

I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.

The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.

No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.

Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.

Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.

what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?

Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?

Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.

If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.

I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision. I wonder why you ignore that?

Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.

Translation: westwall provided a great argument I can’t refute so he manually put him on ignore, yet still reads westwall’s post. Now, that is one for the books.

 

[danielpalos]

A natural right is one that exists before the formation of governments. The founders knew that the first step towards tyranny is the disarming of the citizens. They believed that the people had the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, for self defense of themselves, their families, their land, their property, to fight against tyranny and to fight against invasions. It is all quite clearly stated in the written records of their meetings and discussions and debates. You have no argument. All you have is your dishonest twisting of words and definitions. As soon as a person does a little research into what the founding fathers actually SAID about the 2nd amendment, it is quite clear just what kind of dishonest little jerks you people are. I don't trust you, and nobody should. No way in hell would anyone in their right minds give up one of their rights because of you sniveling little cowards.

dear, right wingers; God did not give us our Constitution.

nor did artificial intelligence programs masquerading as posters

don't need, God given rights for a Good argument.

 

[danielpalos]

More than yours. The Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose clause

Can you point to some legal analysis or Court opinion with such a holding? Because, that is contrary to the plain language of the Amendment, placing too much emphasis on one part, in a fashion that renders the other meaningless. You are trying to establish an ambiguity out of plain language. We entertain your bullshit attempts at ambiguity and beat your ass with the founders' own words demonstrating their intent. You provide NOTHING to the contrary but your catch phrases.

Dude, there is only one reason for an Intent and Purpose clause.

 

[danielpalos]

Nope; Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States

The wellness of regulation?


But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right. I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.

Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.

It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

 

[danielpalos]

bullshit, and why do you ignore keep and bear?

I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?

If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?

Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.

Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."

Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.


You communists are so predictable. You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now. We will fucking smoke your commie asses. In fact, please try. Please.

So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?

The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"

Is this one right or is this two rights?

For example, the First Amendment

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.

The 4A

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.

Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.

Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.

The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".

No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.

Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.

"The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.

"bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".

KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP

Heller confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.

You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that, the Heller holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.

The mental gynastics is glorious.

Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.

Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
.....
Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.

No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.

Dear frigidweirdo
A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
and is not the original intent?

B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
because it hasn't been struck down

what about new laws like conceal and carry.

new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.

Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.

So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
'

Wrong.

Laws and measures are presumed to be Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, and are considered to be the law of the land. (see US v. Morrison (2000))

Any local official who refuses to enforce a just and proper law is in violation of the Constitution and his oath of office. (see Cooper v. Aaron (1958))

Local authorities don’t have the authority to ‘deem’ any measure Constitutional or un-Constitutional – their opinion as to the constitutionality of a law they’re entrusted to enforce is irrelevant.

C_Clayton_Jones
This shows the deep separation in beliefs between
people like you the liberals who came from the
school of thought of Rousseau and
the conservatives who came from the
school of thought of Locke.

Both schools of thought exist and have always existed,
and argued just as you do that the other is invalid.

All I can do to explain to you is that the other school of thought,
that the law resides with the people as the final authority
and check on govt, those people EQUALLY SAY THAT YOU
AND YOUR BELIEFS are the problem and are NOT valid
but your belief in Liberalism.

So at best, the two tie.
But in the end, where your beliefs stop and keep depending
on Govt to change, that's where the CONSERVATIVE approach
of the people being ultimately in charge end up DOING ALL THE WORK TO MAKE THE CHANGES IN GOVT while the liberals and the Republicans who also started relying on this liberal approach "wait on others to change govt first."

So it still lands on the OTHER school of thought, where
people are in charge of what becomes public policy.

NOTE: another source of bias may be that I'm from and live in Texas where our Constitution states the authority of the people even stronger. So if you don't have this in your state, or in your state of mind as I do as a Native Texan, that also reinforces where our separate biases depart along the traditional historic split between the govt imposing the will of the people and the govt reflecting the consent of the governed as the basis of laws and contracts. If the people do not consent, it doesn't carry the full weight and authority of law but is subject to change. And where you and I disagree is what do we do in the MEANTIME while a contested law has been passed or ruled on while it is still argued as UNCONSTITUTIONAL, do the people have the right to enforce otherwise? History has shown cases where this has happened, and I attribute that to human nature.

C_Clayton_Jones you are basically trying to legislate against human nature, where I've never met any human being who didn't rebel against even govt authority when that entity was enforcing policies that violated basic human rights and natural laws. So in the end, when in conflict, people revert back to our human nature and will refuse to comply with unjust laws.

The founders knew this, especially advocates like Jefferson, they weren't perfect in their application of it to all cases and all people, but they basically knew the conscience of the people would be the final check on govt that would always tend to run amok toward tyranny because of the nature of collective entities
running over individuals.

But I understand, the secular minds who don't account for a higher nature or power driving human nature as the source of the laws will depend on just the SECULAR govt to establish what is law. That is the nature and belief of liberal secularism taken to that extreme. And likewise the conservative Constitutionalists place the power of the people as the default, and the govt is supposed to reflect what we consent to authorize as public law, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

These two schools have always existed and fought to check and balance each other. But I find that one is a SUBSET of the other. If everything depended on GOVT to change then nothing would ever change. Change has always come from the PEOPLE to use the democratic system to reform govt UNTIL IT TRULY REFLECTS THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE.

The liberal view of depending on govt to decide public policy
thus always relies on the conservative approach, and that's why the liberals continue to play the victim/oppressed role That's what you get when you rely on "official govt" and not the people as the ultimate authority of law, you get a SUBSET, while the greater public that includes ALL people, not just ones with political representation through govt, are the broader source of power.

See quote from Texas Bill of Rights below, that may explain why the bias between us is even more pronounced:

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

The closest I have found is in the Declaration of Independence:
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

This is probably why some opponents criticized Jefferson as coming across as Anarchist, because taking the risk that the people will, on their own, have the jurisprudence to reform and enforce laws in a LAWFUL CIVIL manner when taking on this responsibility is scary to those, especially like you, who do not trust people and use govt to check people; while the conservative view is not to trust collective centralized govt and use people to check that! Both are right, both need to check the other, but the govt is a subset of the people, so ultimately it will ALWAYS be up to the people to check govt, not the other way which will become incestuous with conflicts of interest where the govt will cease to check itself against abuses once the people in power have and want to keep their way and impose it on everyone else outside positions of power. That has always been the struggle of humanity and institutionalized laws.

And it has always come to the people to change things whenever the corruption of either church or state got stuck in a loop because of the private interests in power monopolizing it!

the founders KNEW this, and that's why they demanded that govt not interfere with freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and due process of the people open so the people could always use our democratic freedoms by nature as a check on govt. And that's what we've ALWAYS used when the people didn't agree or consent to what got passed through govt.

 

[danielpalos]

A natural right is one that exists before the formation of governments. The founders knew that the first step towards tyranny is the disarming of the citizens. They believed that the people had the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, for self defense of themselves, their families, their land, their property, to fight against tyranny and to fight against invasions. It is all quite clearly stated in the written records of their meetings and discussions and debates. You have no argument. All you have is your dishonest twisting of words and definitions. As soon as a person does a little research into what the founding fathers actually SAID about the 2nd amendment, it is quite clear just what kind of dishonest little jerks you people are. I don't trust you, and nobody should. No way in hell would anyone in their right minds give up one of their rights because of you sniveling little cowards.

dear, right wingers; God did not give us our Constitution.

Dear danielpalos
What this means is
a. natural laws that exist by human nature, and by how our conscience works as social creature, are inherent and self-existent. in secular terms this comes from NATURE in religious terms it comes from GOD. if you take GOD to mean forces of life or nature, that's the same source these "human rights and laws" come from regardless which term you use
b. The Constitution attempted to put into written words and social contracts or laws
the PRINCIPLES and concepts that naturally exist when trying to define just and peaceful relations between people for law and order

This is like the "laws of physics" that exist by nature of the universe and energy/matter in the world; but man's language in writing these "laws" down in SYMBOLS or words
becomes man made language for the laws we didn't make up either.

What ChrisL and I are both saying is that even
without manmade language for the laws,
the PRINCIPLES behind the laws exist on their own.
That just comes with the way human conscience
and relations work. We all want freedom, peace justice security.
So the laws we write are to express and defend those
naturally occurring principles and concepts that are
inherent in human nature, regardless how we write or express those in words or laws.

The point is our Constitution is political, not divine.

 

[turtledude]

Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
.....
Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.

No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.

Dear frigidweirdo
A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
and is not the original intent?

B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
because it hasn't been struck down

what about new laws like conceal and carry.

new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.

Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.

So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
'

I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.

The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.

No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.

Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.

Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.

what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?

Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?

Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.

If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.

I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision. I wonder why you ignore that?

because it bitch-slaps frigid's faux argument

 

[turtledude]

I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?

If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?

Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.

Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."

Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.


You communists are so predictable. You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now. We will fucking smoke your commie asses. In fact, please try. Please.

So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?

The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"

Is this one right or is this two rights?

For example, the First Amendment

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.

The 4A

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.

Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.

Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.

The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".

No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.

Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.

"The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.

"bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".

KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP

Heller confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.

You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that, the Heller holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.

The mental gynastics is glorious.

Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.

Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.

horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"

 

[ChrisL]

Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."

Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.


You communists are so predictable. You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now. We will fucking smoke your commie asses. In fact, please try. Please.

So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?

The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"

Is this one right or is this two rights?

For example, the First Amendment

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.

The 4A

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.

Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.

Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.

The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".

No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.

Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.

"The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.

"bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".

KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP

Heller confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.

You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that, the Heller holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.

The mental gynastics is glorious.

Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.

Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.

horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"

Keep does mean possess anyhow. Lol. I don't know why you continue to argue with this retard. He is clearly retarded.

 

[ChrisL]

Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."

Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.


You communists are so predictable. You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now. We will fucking smoke your commie asses. In fact, please try. Please.

So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?

The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"

Is this one right or is this two rights?

For example, the First Amendment

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.

The 4A

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.

Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.

Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.

The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".

No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.

Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.

"The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.

"bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".

KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP

Heller confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.

You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that, the Heller holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.

The mental gynastics is glorious.

Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.

Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.

horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"

If you encourage him, he will reply with the exact same nonsense that he always posts, all of which has been already established as lies and dishonesty many, many, many times. He is either retarded or a troll.